I would only comment and say this praxeology “science” is total intellectual BS. It’s way-over-complicated-twisted logic that was developed to explain causality that is not properly understood. The “new science” is like all the complicated ancient models of the universe, explaining how all the stars and sun rotate around the earth. They were all over-complicated-twisted mechanical logical models, because they were attempting to make logical what is not true….what could not mechanically be; that could not physically be.

Oh yes, there is some truth in it…”see, there it is, the sun passing overhead”, but its way short on wisdom, and does not take into consideration the entire picture. Point is Economics is not even a human behavioral science. This idea hopefully will fall in the dust bin of human history like all the other ancient universal models.

Economics or “the science of economy” is a physical science, a physical “law”, that governs everything, that even human will cannot escape, that is inherently a “natural law”, that is far simpler then this twisted praxeology nonsense. This law must operate within the simple condition of E=MC2 … consisting of time, energy and 3 dimensional space, that this so called praxeology “science” must operate within as well, except it is void of it — void of any physical restraint whatsoever outside of human will.

If all of human nature were extinguished, there would still be economics, simple and pure, where something cannot come from nothing. If you want to understand why socialism fails, or anything fails — or succeeds for that matter, it’s not feelings and beliefs, it’s physics plain and simple.

With all due respect for Mises, don’t waste your time on this intellectual non-science. If you want to understand Economics and the necessity of individual freedom, liberty and free markets in a physical world, in physics you will find it, void of emotion. Look for the why demonstrated in even the simplest cause and effect. It’s right there in front you at every moment.

When you throw a ball to see its effect, or observe a tree blowing in the wind, or an ocean wave, and you understand they are all doing just one thing–the very same thing, and why, you will have discovered economics, and then you will understand as well, why you reach for convenience, and far more.

Mises tries to explain his epistemological foundation for praxeology and ultimately social “science” in Theory and History, along with first 200 pages of Human Action. I believe due to the conditions he experienced in Europe at the time(when has it been that much different), he over emphasized apriori reasoning to explain political economy and the free society. Like you said there is some truth to this, but this sort of apriori-ism has been extended by Hoppe and his ‘argumentation ethics’ which you can apply the same criticism. Tautologies based on human affairs seems to be useless as your using a mechanical process to explain a non-mechanical one(human action).

And yes Herbert Spencer. I don’t hear much about him from libertarians.

“Apart from the above request; I’d like to hear both your thoughts on why you think this is not correct. This excellent summary which follows is geared towards those new to philosophy elucidates what the Austrian School of economic thought actually entails in terms of its methodology, and how the status of its economic propositions differs to those of the mainstream.”

I don’t necessarily disagree with the theorem. The dialectical reasoning is sound, just as Hoppes’ argumentation ethics. My issue is that a praxeological theorem requires a thymological understanding. I don’t believe like Mises did, that you can separate the two. How are you suppose to know and accept, that an action axiom exists in the first place?

Also, given our limitations of cognition and understanding of causality, I don’t see any particular reason why praxeology is an ironclad formal system. Geometry is another or when Spinoza tried to make one in his Ethics. The axioms are taken for granted for the sake of utility—engineering, science, ethics, economics. They might change in X amount of years when we have a better understanding of our nature and come up with better systems. But, the difference between praxeology and geometry is that geometry is concerned solely with mechanical processes(measurement of space) in the physical world. Humans act, but they also value things which makes it difficult for something like praxeology to be of much use.

” I’d like to hear both your thoughts on why you think this is not correct. ”

What you say is correct, but there are other “correct” ways to determine if a particular theory is true. Contrary to what Mises says this is not the only way to invalidate it. Actually, invalidating a theory is much easier than proving it.

An example (after Nassim Taleb) which I have given many times:

Theory:”All swans are white”

All I need to do is to find one non-white swan to invalidate the above theory. I do not need even to know how the theory is derived.

To be self-evident requires some understanding(thymology) on the part of an individual. How does something exist without anyone coming to think it in the first place? Mises says this is not observational than what exactaly is it? Don’t I have to “observe” the fact that the action axiom is self-evident for me to consider it true?

And as far as the cognition of action. Doesn’t this assume some sort of definitive knowledge about free will and the fact that we are aware of the requirements of causality? I think I remember Mises discusses this somewhere.

Note the following (emphasis mine): “The theorems attained by CORRECT praxeological reasoning are not only perfectly certain and incontestable, like the correct mathematical theorems. ”

I do not contest that if the logic is correct, then everything is OK. What I claim is that sometimes logic is not OK. What you have quoted does not contradict my view in the least.

“What you ought to read to alleviate your ignorance… ”

There are many cases in which theories can be falsified. Nobody said this is possible always, but very often this is the case. And then pointing out the obvious (i.e. that there are black swans) saves us the effort to decipher some convoluted theorem.

An example: There seems to be a theorem of Mises that money could NEVER exist if they have not been used before as goods from the general population. The problem is Bitcoin. It has never been used in this way and can not be used, since it is an abstraction. Consequence: Mises is wrong. This theorem is invalid.

Another one: Nowadays economists believe that deflation is always detrimental and try to avoid it at all costs. The problem is that there have been deflationary growth periods during the 19th century. Consequence: this theory is also wrong.

What use is of praxeology without some thymological understanding? Sure the theorem is correct because it’s a tautology. Other formal systems are as well, but at least they can be useful. Perhaps I am not aware of the real implications. If I’m an architect and want to build some buildings, I would need some knowledge of basic geometry. Can you say the same for businesses owners and entrepreneurs? How many go about daily, without knowing anything about economics?

On the contrary. What Mises claims (correct me if I do not state it well) is that praxeological theorems can not be proved or disproved by using empirical evidence.Whereas I agree with the “proved” part I disagree that they can not be disproved (when an error is there).

About Bitcoin:

According to this video and Graf’s definitions the Mises Regression Theorem is not about money at all. It is just about ” the medium of exchange” function which is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for something to be money. Basically, what he explains is that this theorem is wrongly understood. Very strange!

Furthermore he says that bitcoins have been used for other purposes before they started being a medium of exchange, which is exactly what the theorem states. Basically he says that if I create another digital currency ( medium of exchange!) – Mycoin for instance and if I decide that the first time I use it will be for an exchange – then I can not do that. The reason: the theorem forbids it. Basically, what he says is that a developer working for Mycoin can not offer a pizza to me (as the sole owner who posses all Mycoins in existence) in exchange for some Mycoins. The latter just can not happen! Funny!

What does that mean “special relation”? If thymology concerns itself with the process of valuation after action then how is it not related? Even in that chart it states how “complex issues” are dealt through thymology, after the logic of action and it’s first implications. Mises seems very keen on separating economic propositions from psychologistic thinking. I am not convinced you can separate the two in reality.

Say a community of people who freely associate come up with how conditions for property and land will be handled, not based on a Rothbardian/Hoppian theory. Are they wrong to do so? Are these fundamental economic laws stopping them?

No, only that ALL physical action has economic effect, even action that is not by human intention, that is simply a physical cause like any other, that will have effect like any other, determined by economic efficiency or physical law. Its calculation or result is absolute. Feelings or intention may be the impetus that initiates an action or cause, but intention has no actual physical effect after the physical action itself is made.

Keep in mind (and this should all have been tonight in 9th grade science class), that ALL physical action is the “relative” exchange of energy, over time, inside a space…and during that exchange, there is a result that is a measurement that is degree of efficiency of that exchange. Think round wheels vs square wheels.

Simple physical inefficiency is the reason socialism fails every time its tried. It’s not because people didn’t believe in it hard enough. It’s because socialism “forces” actions that is inefficient that is having effect of economic loss, even with good intention. This condition can have no other effect but to manifest physical loss…or less of something. Good intention and feelings cannot effect inefficient action. As a matter of fact, the harder they try to act (incorrectly) with good intention, with even greater force, the greater and faster the decline.

It is an inescapable physical phenomenon without choice.

The only way to turn this physical condition around, is to learn by cause and effect, and change one’s action, that has effect that is efficient. This effect is not determined by feelings and beliefs, or even by understanding human nature, but first by understanding nature itself, or physical law, that is no less natural law.

That is where economic science and logic and wisdom can be found….and I’m sure I am outside popular opinion on this, but you cannot escape physical law with intellectual “science”.

“The primary problem with all such laws is that nothing is determined by them because they all depend on human behavior which can never be absolutely predicted, because human beings are volitional beings whose behavior is not determined, especially not by any so-called “economic laws.””

is not exactly correct. You incorrectly surmise that the Austrian school thinks otherwise and oppose it. In Austrian views such laws are “trends” exactly because of the reasons you gave (human nature). These laws do not say :”This will always, no matter what, happen this way”. They say ” This is the tendency which is most likely to be followed. Due to the unpredictable human nature however we can not guarantee it. Still, this is our best bet, since for most people, in most circumstances this trend is confirmed.”

Because of the reasons you gave the Austrian school refuses to accept that future can be determined exactly by such laws. And if I am not wrong, the Austrian school is the only one which supports such views.

True principles are universal, absolute, and inviolable. In science a “law” means a principle. Some laws are expressed with “tolerances” such as, “within this scope such’n’such is always true.”

To call something a, “law,” and then say it is only a, “trend,” is dishonest. If something only suggests something will happen a certain way, even if it will usually happen that way, but, “doesn’t have to happen that way,” it is not a law.

I’m sure you’re right in your analysis, Youliy, but my response was to someone who was presenting those, “laws,” as though they were absolutes. It was that attitude toward them I was refuting, and you have just fortified that position.

Well Randall, I think we successfully scared Conner away from Praxeology. LOL

Conner, seek out as you see fit, but keep in mind the single most important thing to consider closely when attempting to understand economic “science”, that’s missing in praxeology and all the other popular theories offered up by so called “economists”. And that is “human action”, and that it is no different then any other action. It is all physical action, that has effect, governed and restrained by the law of physics. Yes, we all have will, and intention, and can “determine” our action, but our ability is to only determined and initiate a physical cause. We cannot determine the effect. That calculation is already backed into the physical cake we call reality.

To understand true, pure, uncomplicated Economics, real Economics (not human behavioral science that is our emotional interaction with it) is to understand first the physical world we act in. You can do this by studying the simple example of any two things interacting. The more simple the better. And then study two more things over there in another instance, to compare how each interacts. When you find the reason for cause and effect for both to be same, you will have found the reason for the cause and effect of all things, and that they are determined by “economy” even without human intervention.

We are acting in a world where something cannot come from nothing, and so, to have more of something, requires taking more of something else, or, one can act more efficiently. Just ask Henry Ford. He didn’t act just any which way to produce more with the same amount of labor, he simply figured out how to act “correctly”, or more efficiently, that saved labor, that is saving energy, that had the intended physical effect, in less time.

There is only to master the understanding of cause and effect, so that we can more accurately determine and physically act more correctly, to create the relative cause, that will manifest our intended effect. There is no amount of will or (fill-in-your-choice-of-very-important-intellectual-word) that can change this physical state of condition.

(This quote is not in my book yet, Conza, but please feel free to quote me on it).

Fundamental, universal economics can be demonstrated on a your kitchen table, that even a 12 year old could fully comprehend. It is important that to remove human behavior from the equation, and then observe closely cause and effect, and then to reason why. If real economics was understood, Socialism, Communism, Nationalism, Marxism (and all the rest of this intellectual nonsense), would be gone forever from the face of this earth….because it would be understood, that they are physical impossibilities, no matter how handsome or convincing the dictator, because they would understand “force”, and that force has its relative physical consequence, that cannot be escaped by good intention.

But today, we have faux economics that revolve around what mankind “thinks” as if the world revolves around what mankind “thinks” and “feels”, by even the best of intentioned, but is still no more then intellectual self-masturbation, trying to make what some “think” apply to physical reality, and why of course, it manifests all these over-complicated intellectual mumbo jumbo theories. They try to define the universe, and in doing so they create their own.

The FIRST fact is, we act in a physical world with restraint. So all action must be measured within this context, no? So one would think objective #1 would be: to understand the restraint, no? This is not rocket science and you don’t need a college degree in physics to understand it. Actually a college degree in this stuff will only make you understand it less. I’m not too sure that is not the intended result any way.

To understand real economics, is to understand again what they never taught us in 9th grade science class, and that is the universe already has direction, and it is forever toward the path of least resistance.Know that it already “acts” toward its most efficient path, from the smallest to the largest degree. Everywhere, in every instance, and at every moment. It acts with cause and effect and “absolutely”, to mathematical perfection…there is no “almost”, or “sometimes”, and your feelings have no effect on it. Call it physical law or natural law or whatever you want to call it, but you will find there is good reason for this, when you consider energy is finite.

To discover then, that to work against this direction, will require force, to consider again, that is the only reason for force, and then that energy if finite, and then that force must come from somewhere. This is Economics 101…where one begins to truly understand physical phenomenon such as the “law of diminishing returns”, the effects of “scarcity”, what “value” and “wealth” really are, and “capitalism” and so many more. They are all simple manifestations of the restraint of the physical condition.

When one begins to truly understand the physical condition we “act” in, one will begin to understand the PHYSICAL NECESSITY of freedom a liberty, which is no less an act to “preserve” the natural (that is free) physical state of condition, to simply FACILITATE nature, because it will without failure, find/take its most economical path, better then one man can. To understand now, that nature has taken on an intellectual level, that can take action determined now by reason, and then at every moment, and by each individual, in so many ways than we could never know. But to know, it all has absolute physical effect, and is not missed, and is accumulative and calculated to perfection, to see it on the nightly news, how our collective “economy” is doing. To see how physically efficiently we have all been “acting”.

To understand the universe does not revolve around what mankind thinks. That mankind has only two choices, to “act” toward nature’s favor, or against it…and then, that there are physical consequences in both directions that cannot be escaped by will. One is toward physical success and the other toward physical failure, to understand, one is toward creation and the other toward extinction, which is to say, one it toward what can be, and the other is toward what cannot.

It’s to begin to understand that freedom and liberty manifest both the greatest physical creation and abundance, and even the greatest moral brotherhood, and that it is all by physical reason. To begin to understand, that force of another can never physically attain what freedom and liberty can attain, because it is by simple math and calculation of physical law, and not by one’s feelings or opinion.

If all this hasn’t helped there is a lot of good material at mises.org including several MisesU talks that cover this material. Walter Block, I think, has covered this topic in the last year and there is a good discussion given by Roderick Long in 2007.

You could also have a look at George Mason University where they take a more Hayekian view of matters and I am sure there will be some reasoned critical assessments of praxeology.

Please explain how, “That’s it in a nutshell,” or the sentence to which it refers, “I would only comment and say this praxeology ‘science’ is total intellectual BS,” (written by someone else), attacks anyone’s character, motives, personality, intentions, or qualifications?

Perhaps “bovine scat” (BS) is a little strong, but it’s not about any person, just the ludicrous absurdity called praxeology.

You quoted HHH:

“Mises’s great insight was that economic reasoning has its foundation in just this understanding of action; and that the status of economics as a sort of applied logic derives from the status of the action-axiom as an a priori-true synthetic proposition.”

How can anything beginning with so many fallacies possibly be worth anyone’s honest intellectual interest. There is no such thing as <i>a priori</i> knowledge, and no such thing as synthetic/analytic dichotomy. Those fallacious ideas are right out of Kant.

Worst of all, the so-called, “action-axiom,” is not an axion. It is not even true, and it is easily refuted. The contention that refuting the axiom is self-contradictory because the axiom has to be assumed to mount such a refutation is not true. While it would be self-contradictory to attempt to refute consciousness, for example, no such contradiction exists in refuting “axiom of action.”

First, we do not have try to refute the axiom of action to discover it is a fallacy. One simply has to ask, “how do I know this is true,” as one must ask that of all assumptions.

In the case of consciousness the answer to the question, “how do I know this is true,” is answered by the fact one who is not conscious cannot <i>consciously</i> ask the question, and one cannot ask questions unconsciously.

In the case of the “axiom of action” the answer to the question, “how do I know this is true,” cannot be answered by appealing to the axiom itself, which would be the fallacy of, “<b>begging the question</b>.” While it is true that asking the question, “how do I know this is true,” is purposeful, that fact only pertains to attempting to answer the question at hand and does not imply that all other human action is purposeful.

In fact, an attempt to refute of the so-called, “action axiom,” though purposeful itself, does <i>not</i> imply anything else an individual does is purposeful. It cannot be deduced logically from the fact that refuting the, “action axiom,” is purposeful, that any other human action is purposeful. Such an argument is, in fact, logically false. There is not even any way to form the syllogism to prove it. What would the major premise be?

It cannot be, “all human action is purposeful.” If that is the major premise the syllogism will be begging the question, assuming the conclusion in the premise.

The so-called, “action axiom,” is not an axiom at all, and is not known a priori or synthetically or any other way. Most human action is purposeful, because human beings are volitional beings and the correct use of volition is action (both consciously and overtly) toward some chosen ends. But volition does not require one’s actions to be purposeful and one does not have to identify an objective to choose an action.

In fact, much human action has no purpose beyond the action itself. My chewing gum, or daydreaming, or pacing while thinking are simply done because I enjoy doing them. There is no chosen objective to these actions beyond the actions themselves. If praexology includes such actions, then praexology is just an awkward and clumsy way of saying all human behavior is volitional, that is, consciously chosen. That is hardly the basis for a whole theory of economics, ethics, perhaps, but not economics.

“In fact, much human action has no purpose beyond the action itself. My chewing gum, or daydreaming, or pacing while thinking are simply done because I enjoy doing them.”

And? Is not the enjoyment you derive from chewing gum the purpose that you chose to act in the purchase and chewing of the gum? If there was no purpose of these discrete actions, why did you do them? I think you just proved the axiom.

“And? Is not the enjoyment you derive from chewing gum the purpose that you chose to act in the purchase and chewing of the gum? If there was no purpose of these discrete actions, why did you do them? I think you just proved the axiom.”

Why did you think that. I mean, what was your objective.

As I said, “If praexology includes such actions, then praexology is just an awkward and clumsy way of saying all human behavior is volitional, that is, consciously chosen. That is hardly the basis for a whole theory of economics. If that is all you mean, Aristotle beat y’all to it, and it’s nothing to keep puffing yourselves up about.

As for the chewing gum. I didn’t buy it. A friend offered it to me and I took it without thinking about it at all.

“The attempt to disprove the action-axiom would itself be an action aimed at a goal, requiring means, excluding other courses of action, incurring costs, subjecting the actor to the possibility of achieving or not achieving the desired goal and so leading to a profit or a loss.”

There is no need to disprove that for which there is neither evidence or reason to think in the first place. Since there is neither logical or evidential basis for the so-called action-axiom, it is simply, “made up,” and like all other fictions, (God, tooth fairies, demons) cannot be disproved.

So I thought I’d point out a little contradiction in your argument: “subjecting the actor to the possibility of achieving or not achieving the desired goal.” Since you contend the action-axiom is irrefutable, the attempt to refute it cannot possibly subject the actor to the possibility of achieving the desire goal, and since that is part of your description of the action-axiom, your argument contradicts itself.

That happens a lot in so-called praxeology, which is inevitable to any scheme based on the false premise of the a priori, and the false dichotomy between reason and empirical knowledge. All knowledge is about that man is conscious of, that which can be perceived, the empirical world of facts, which includes the fact we are conscious of it, and all knowledge is knowledge of what we are conscious of, and is acquired by the rational identification of that which is perceived. There is no other knowledge.

“… here is the proper approach for the social sciences… anyone denying the distinction made is a fruit loop.”

Re: “All knowledge is about that man is conscious of, that which can be perceived, the empirical world of facts, which includes the fact we are conscious of it, and all knowledge is knowledge of what we are conscious of, and is acquired by the rational identification of that which is perceived. There is no other knowledge.”

To which you commented: <b>Just Facts, No Theory?</b>

I know you don’t know the difference between the so-called empiricism of the positivists and the a priorism of the Kantians, but neither is what I’m talking about. I said all knowledge is derived from observable reality, including the fact of consciousness (without which there would be no observation). This does not imply, “just fact, no theories,” it means just the opposite; it means all theories must be based on observable facts. One cannot have a theory of combustion without knowing the facts, theories without facts end up positing nonsense like phlogistin, or praexology.

“Examples of what I mean by <i>a priori theory</i> are:

No material thing can be at two places at once. No two objects can occupy the same place. A straight line is the shortest line between two points. No two straight lines can enclose a space. Whatever object is red all over cannot be green (blue, yellow, etc.) all over. Whatever object is colored is also extended. Whatever object has shape has also size. If A is a part of B and B is a part of C, then A is a part of C. 4 = 3 +1. 6 = 2 (33 – 30).”

Is it “a priori theory” or “a priori knowledge?” If it’s “theory,” I don’t see one here.

All the examples are concepts derived from actual experience and learning. Not a single one, “just is.” What is a material thing? What is a place? What does “two” mean? What is an object? The questions are rhetorical meant only to point out one can have no such thoughts until one knows what such things as are.

Once those things are known (having been learned and identified from the observable world) and having learned what is meant by an object, for example, a physical entity with specific attributes which are its identity, since a thing’s location is one of its identifying attributes, it cannot have a different location attribute, because then it would be a different thing. Of course one would have to know ontology to know that. Some people might reject it just because they haven’t learned it yet. “Whatever object has shape has also size,” is also derived from ontology (the study of the ultimate nature of physical existence, just in case you were unfamiliar with it). Shape and size are two aspects of the same ontological fact that all physical existents have positional characteristics.

“Whatever object is red all over cannot be green (blue, yellow, etc.) all over.” In spite of the redundancy (it is sufficient to say whatever is red cannot also be green, yellow, or any other color) is derived directly from perception itself. It should be obvious a blind person would never derive the proposition himself, but after learning what the nature of color is, could never make the mistake saying something could be both red and green, that is, have both the physical characteristics of red and green, different properties of the light spectrum.

What is a line. What is a straight line? You think people are born with such concepts? They are learned from experience with actual lines, from which the idea of geometric lines are derived (abstracted). All the rules of geometry are derived from theorems and postulates requiring long complex chains of reasoning beginning with observable reality.

Here’s a better example of what is called transitive relationships. If A is left of B, and B is left of C, A is left of C: unless they’re in a circle, then A is left of B, and B is left of C, and C is left of A, so A is right of C. But you already knew that, <i>a priori</i>, right?

By the way, no objective empiricist would “denigrate” the principles of mathematics, geometry, or logic. It was objective empiricists who discovered them learning how to identify and understand the nature of material existence. If it weren’t for Thales, Euclid, Pythagoras, Aristotle and others, you wouldn’t have clue about any of your so-called a priori ideas.

I think it is a shame to put over almost obvious cliches as some kind special insight. “You can’t have your cake and eat it to,” stated pompously, “What is consumed now cannot be consumed again in the future,” as a priori theory.

Most are obvious, and mostly insipid, but this is flat-out wrong: “Interpersonal conflict is possible only if and insofar as things are scarce.” Guess you never heard of Islam or bar fights.

What you say is absolutely correct. Knowledge has been derived based on observations, even the so-called “incontestable” theorems in the Austrian school. I could never understand how so one can use observations to prove a theorem (for instance) but one is forbidden to use similar observations to disprove it (according to the Austrian school).

We’re not going to agree. I have no interest in convincing you, I’m only interested in the truth, and am only expressing what I know to be true. You do not have to agree with it.

H.L. Mencken said, “The average man never really thinks from end to end of his life. The mental activity of such people is only a mouthing of cliches. What they mistake for thought is simply a repetition of what they have heard. My guess is that well over 80 percent of the human race goes through life without having a single original thought.” [H.L. Mencken, “Minority Report”]

I notice that you almost never provide your own thoughts and reasoning about anything, but only provide quotes by others. I’d be interested to know if you have any original thoughts on any of these things.

I’d love to discuss what you think in your own words, but if you are only going to provide what others think, there is really no point in any further discussion. I’m perfectly capable to reading what others wrote.

Randall, I enjoyed your philosophical broadside. But I disagree on your final comment about conflict and scarcity. Your counterexamples are a bit vague, so I remain unconvinced.

In this context, “scarce” is used as economic jargon, not in its ordinary meaning. A scarce resource is one for which someone has a use for an additional quantity of it. An abundant resource, the opposite of scarce, is available in such large quantities that the marginal use for another unit is to waste it, to do nothing with it, to ignore it, even if it is available free to anyone. One of the few resources that is considered abundant by economists is air, which we allow to escape from our lungs without any thought (usually).

I’m not sure what you had in mind in regard to bar fights, perhaps the idea that in such circumstances conflicts just happen, with no definite cause or scarcity involved? I would say rather that when alcohol impairs our brains, we are likely to perceive all things, including scarcity, in an impaired way, and our inhibitions against engaging in violence over trivial or even imaginary matters may be greatly reduced. Economists do not theorize separately about drunks, ordinarily.

Maybe you intended “Islam” to indicate people fight over religion? But believers are scarce, as well as other scarce resources that may inspire the faithful to engage in conflict.

If we could just duplicate the West Bank costlessly, would there be anything for the Palestinians to fight about? To some extent the conflict has become about past injuries, but would it ever have begun if everyone who wanted good land could just have some for free? What would make a benter counterexample…. Perhaps copyright lawsuits? These are based on a conflict over goods that are not rivalrous, but is that enough to say they are abundant? And further, while the use of a nonrivalrous good may lie at the center of the controversy, it is the money at stake that truly engages the disputants. Eliminate the money damages and what would inspire such lawsuits? Maybe the true authors would wish to enjoin others from performing their works, or to demand they receive authorship credit? Maybe someone who is a better scarcity lawyer can figure this out.

“Randall, I enjoyed your philosophical broadside. But I disagree on your final comment about conflict and scarcity. Your counterexamples are a bit vague, so I remain unconvinced.”

You’re right, the examples were a bit vague. I’m not really trying to convince anyone, though, and I agree with your explanation of conflict that does involve scarcity.

I used religion and “bar fights” as examples of the kind of things people become emotionally charged or enraged about when there is absolutely nothing material at stake. Some religious people hate those of other religions so much, they would willingly harm or even kill them for no other reason than their hate when there is nothing, no real estate (territory), numbers of adherents, money, or anything else at stake. That kind of hatred is not rational, but is, like most irrational behavior, a surrender of one’s will to feelings, emotions, and passions.

“Bar fights,” are just another example of irrational conflicts. I did not have the affect of alcohol in mind, even though some people’s ability to remain rational under the influence of alcohol is definitely reduced. It was the propensity of the kind of people who take offense at almost anything someone else says or does, when again there is nothing material at stake, and will “fight” over nothing except their feelings or irrational rage. “You made fun of my team, my flag, my haircut, my tattoo, my girlfriend, …, take that.” What is the scarcity?

Perhaps there is some way to make even those situations examples of conflicts resulting from scarcity, but to my mind, it would be rationalizing to make them fit the hypothesis.

Now that’s my explanation for what I think, not an argument to convince you to agree with it.

By Objective truth I do not mean the mish-mash of, “intersubjectively ascertainable” you have suggested. Truth is not, “anybody’s.” Like all knowledge it is not decided or accepted or chosen by anyone. All true knowledge has to be discovered and is universal, absolute, and inviolable, just as reality is, because it is reality that determines what is true.

Here’s is what reality and truth are:

Reality

By reality is meant all that is the way it is.

Reality is what is so, whether anybody knows what is so or not. Reality includes everything that is and excludes everything that is not. It includes everything, not as a random collection of unrelated things but every entity, every event and every relationship between them. It includes fictional things as fictions, hallucinations as hallucinations, historical things as historical things, and material things as material things. Reality does not include fictions (such as Santa Claus) as material or historical facts. It does include the fact that Santa Claus is a common fiction used for the enjoyment of Children at the Christmas season.

Truth

By truth is meant that which correctly describes reality or any aspect of it.

The following illustration demonstrates both the meaning of reality and truth.

Suppose you are very thirsty and find a bottle containing a colorless, odorless liquid. The liquid in this bottle is either water or a deadly poison. If you choose to drink the liquid one of two things will occur, your thirst will be pleasantly quenched or you will suffer excruciating pain and die.

Reality is what the liquid in the bottle actually is. Truth is whatever correctly describes that liquid. If the liquid is poison, only a statement that says the liquid in the bottle is poison is true. If you believe the liquid is water and drink it, if it is poison you will die. If you take a vote of everyone who has an opinion about what is in the bottle and they all say it is water, if you drink it and it is poison, you will die. If you feel very strongly that the liquid is water and drink it, if it is poison you will die.

Truth is not determined by belief, consensus, or feelings. It is determined by reality. It is determined by what is so, no matter what anybody believes, feels, thinks, or knows. In this case, the truth is determined by what really is in the bottle and only a statement that correctly describes that is the truth.

“So much for any of your arguments… Feel free to address the above post you’ve essentially ignored.”

I haven’t made any arguments. I’m not trying to convince anyone. I don’t care if you think I am, but you shouldn’t. I think you sincerely believe the things you say, just as I sincerely believe the things I say. There is no contest here, as far as I’m concerned, just an opportunity for people to express their best thinking as well as they can, which sometimes is best done against opposing opinions. Wouldn’t you agree?

As for the, “post you’ve essentially ignored.” Is the following what you are referring to:

Since I never said anything about “testing” what you refer to as, “economic laws,” I was not sure you were addressing the question to me.

I am reluctant to answer the question in any case, because I do not recognize “The laws of exchange, the law of diminishing marginal utility, the Ricardian law of association, the law of price controls, and the quantity theory of money,” as, “laws,” if by laws, you mean principles. Whatever is true about any of them can be established by true fundamental principles based on mathematics or physics, or are otherwise simply attempts codify that which are human inventions, i.e., that which has no meaning outside of human actions and concerns. The primary problem with all such laws is that nothing is determined by them because they all depend on human behavior which can never be absolutely predicted, because human beings are volitional beings whose behavior is not determined, especially not by any so-called “economic laws.”

I did not want to answer your question, because I knew it would not please you, and I have nothing to gain by it; but, you’ve asked me three times to do so and I have, only as a courtesy to you.